Collaboration – it was the word on everyone’s lips at the Global Evidence Summit in Prague. With over 1,800 delegates and more than 2,000 abstracts submitted, the event was a vivid demonstration of what happens when knowledge, expertise, and diverse perspectives come together. Organized by Cochrane, the Guidelines International Network (GIN), and the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI), the summit didn’t just provide a platform for exchanging ideas; it was a celebration of global collaboration in healthcare. From intellectual discussions to cultural events, it was clear that collaboration is the key to addressing the most complex challenges facing healthcare today.
The opening set the tone. Jeremy Farrar’s keynote message on the rapid growth of science and the evolving landscape of evidence was a call to action for collaboration. Farrar emphasized that the only way to navigate the complexities of misinformation and mistrust in science is by working together—across disciplines, countries, and sectors. His central message was clear: to advocate effectively for our work, we need to pool our knowledge and resources, ensuring that innovation is not just about speed but about shared responsibility. How can we measure the benefits and harms of new interventions? How do we ensure cost-effectiveness in a way that is equitable? These are questions that no one institution can answer alone, but through collaboration, they become solvable.
One of the most dynamic moments of the summit came during the debate on AI’s role in evidence synthesis. As the debate unfolded, it was clear that the consensus wasn’t about whether AI or humans should take the lead, but rather how the two could work together. The affirmative team’s argument—that AI could process vast amounts of data with unmatched efficiency—was compelling, particularly in light of growing global data complexity. Yet, the opposition highlighted how AI’s current limitations, such as its struggle with bias, underscore the need for human oversight. Both sides, however, arrived at the same conclusion: collaboration between AI and human experts is the future of evidence synthesis. It’s not about AI replacing humans, but augmenting our abilities, ensuring that healthcare decisions are both precise and compassionate. This collaborative approach will be crucial in ensuring equitable access to timely care through evidence synthesis—where AI accelerates processes, but humans bring the necessary judgment, ethics, and clinical judgement.
The AI debate served as a microcosm of a broader theme at the summit: the realization that tackling today’s healthcare challenges requires a team effort. Whether it’s integrating new technologies or addressing equity issues, the message was clear—global problems require collaborative solutions.
Equity, in particular, stood out as a key theme throughout the event. It’s not just about making sure everyone gets the same treatment, but about ensuring that resources are distributed in ways that account for real-world complexities. My own presentation focused on NICE’s work to create strategic principles for evidence-limited domains, like public health, social care, and rare diseases—areas that often get overlooked in traditional healthcare prioritization. This work, too, was rooted in collaboration. Developing these principles involved extensive engagement with stakeholders—patients, policymakers, and professionals—all of whom brought different perspectives to the table. Navigating these diverse viewpoints was challenging, but it ultimately led to richer, more innovative solutions that are both equitable and transparent.
What we learned at NICE is that collaboration not only improves decision-making but also strengthens equity by ensuring that no voice is left unheard. Whether in public health, where the evidence is often less robust than in clinical trials, or in rare diseases, where patient numbers are small but needs are profound, collaboration ensures that we are making decisions that are inclusive and fair.
Alric Ruether’s talk on global disparities in access to medicines further highlighted this point. He posed a crucial question: Are we asking for the evidence we need? And more importantly, are we making sure that disadvantaged populations are represented in the data? Ruether’s challenge to the audience was clear—if we want to overcome global disparities in healthcare, we need to collaborate across borders, sharing data and resources to ensure that everyone, regardless of background or geography, benefits from advances in healthcare.
As the summit drew to a close, I couldn’t help but reflect on the overwhelming consensus: collaboration is the key to solving the biggest challenges we face in healthcare. Whether it’s harnessing the power of AI, advocating for equity, or ensuring global data sharing, the only way forward is together. The Global Evidence Summit reinforced for me that while the path ahead may be complex, it is navigable—so long as we continue to work together, share our knowledge, and remain committed to equitable healthcare for all.
Author
Sinéad Peare
Sinéad is the lead Hepatology Pharmacist at Guy’s & St Thomas’ NHS Trust, with a passion for advancing health equity, global healthcare access, and medicines policy. With a rich background in international health and equity policy, she recently served as the Chief Pharmaceutical Officer’s Clinical Fellow at NICE, where she led the development of strategic principles for rare diseases to improve equity of prioritisation for rare disease topics.
Sinéad’s career has taken her across the globe, in Myanmar she established the country’s first Medicines Information service and led a reform of the pharmacy curriculum, and then in Hong Kong she implemented the largest COVID vaccination centre and published literature to improve equity in childhood vaccination.
Driven by her passion for health equity and her hunger for equal access to medicines globally Sinéad aspires to continue her work internationally, advancing access to essential medicines and supporting the elimination of Hepatitis and HIV worldwide.
Declaration of interests
I have read and understood the BMJ Group policy on declaration of interests and declare the following interests: none.